The SIQ scoring period has ended and the scores have been tabulated. We are pleased to announce the following articles as winners of the Negative Pressure Wound Therapy with Instillation publishing competition:
The SIQ scoring period has ended and the scores have been tabulated. We are pleased to announce the following articles as winners of the Optimization Strategies for Organ Donation and Utilization publishing competition:
The SIQ scoring period has ended and the scores have been tabulated. We are pleased to announce the following articles as winners of the Clinical and Economic Benefits of Autologous Epidermal Grafting publishing competition:
As you can see, the battle for first place came down to the wire with only a handful of scores separating first and second place. (Keep in mind that the above scores represent only those scores submitted during the competition scoring period.)
We’d like to extend a big thank you to the Cureus community for their efforts in reading and scoring competition articles over the past few months. Without you, this competition would not be possible.
After months of hard work, we’re very excited to introduce the brand new Cureus publishing system! Are you ready to submit your next (or your first) article to Cureus? Well, there’s no time like the present – the new publishing system is live right now.
We’ve collected your feedback over the past few years and we’ve done our best to incorporate as many of your suggestions as possible. We’ll continue to iterate over the coming months, so if you have any more suggestions or complaints, don’t be afraid to let us know!
It’s important to note that this change will only affect drafts started on or after Tuesday, September 6th, 2016 – any drafts started before today will utilize the existing submission system.
Tackle your article submission with a new, easy-to-follow, step-by-step process
Select from available channels and competitions via new branded icons and dedicated channel and competition pages
Curate and insert figures, tables and video from your media library
Preview your article draft at any time during the submission process
For more information, we encourage you to check out our Author Guide, which has been updated with brand new guidelines and instructions.
As always, should you have any questions or concerns when submitting your work to Cureus, please drop us a note at firstname.lastname@example.org.
In addition to the winning article, we received dozens of high-quality case reports from around the world, all of which are now published and available free of charge.
We’d like to extend a big thank you to the Cureus community for their efforts in reading and scoring dozens of case reports over the past few months. Without you, this competition would not be possible – you’ve helped shine a spotlight on dozens of interesting cases of exceptional responders in oncology.
Allegations were recently leveled against iMed.pub, an organization affiliated with one of our channel partners, Internet Medical Society. We take such matters very seriously. We have conducted a thorough investigation and we’re here to share our thoughts on this situation as we move forward.
After considering the allegations and speaking at length with the IMS channel administrator, Manuel Menendez, we can state that we believe in the sincerity of IMS’s ambition to publish credible medical scientific articles. While the accusations are certainly nothing to take lightly, we feel confident that work being submitted to Cureus via the IMS channel is of suitable quality and repute. Furthermore, via our wholly unique post-publication review and scoring system, Cureus is in a unique position to uncover fraudulent and illegitimate science, as we actively encourage our community to examine and review articles long after they’ve passed through peer review.
It is worth reminding all readers of scientific publications to always interpret the content with a skeptical eye, whether the article is published in Nature, The New England Journal of Medicine or Cureus. Healthy skepticism is always at the heart of science. It is only through the lens of time that scientific ideas can be truly validated, which is why we at Cureus advocate for our process of post-publication review via SIQ.
As a result, Cureus will continue to host the Internet Medical Society channel and looks forward to the channel’s continued success. As has been the case since our launch in 2011, Cureus will not tolerate plagiarism or illegitimate or untoward publication practices and will remain ever-watchful for any signs of potential transgressions.
We are pleased to announce that Cureus has been accepted for indexing in PubMed Central® (PMC) (with citations added to PubMed). PMC is a free full-text archive of biomedical and life science journal literature operated by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).
We know how much our authors value PMC indexing. Knowing your published article has been indexed should result in relief and validation that your work will be available for the medical community to discover, read, discuss and cite.
Since the start of the year, we’ve published nearly 50 peer-reviewed articles documenting clinical experience and medical research from around the world. All of these articles can now be found in PMC (and their citations in PubMed), and we’re looking forward to the continued expansion of the Cureus library of peer-reviewed literature. Going forward, all articles published in Cureus will be indexed in PMC within one month of publication.
Thank you for your continued support of Cureus. This is a big step for our journal and we’re looking forward to more articles and more readers in the coming months. Please contact us at email@example.com with any questions.
Note (8/19/15): We’ve recently discovered that although articles published within Cureus are cited within PubMed, this does not constitute formal indexing. This blog post has been updated to reflect this distinction.
Here at Cureus we take author and reviewer satisfaction very seriously. We strive to respond to all questions, comments and complaints as soon we can, often within just a few hours. If you’re familiar with the Cureus mission, you know that constructing a publication process devoid of politics (and supporting the increased transparency that comes with it) are our primary goals.
With that in mind, we’d like to share a recent exchange between an anonymous Cureus peer-reviewer unhappy with the amount of time he received to review an article.
Reviewer: Less than a week for an academic neurosurgeon to provide a review? Hmmmm.
Cureus: I was forwarded your recent email lament about the review period ending on a paper to which you were recently invited to comment. I wanted to reach out to you by email to firstly, thank you for responding, and secondly to explain a little bit more how the Cureus review process is designed to work, which as you perhaps noted is quite different than traditional journals.
As an academic neurosurgeon myself, I am all too aware that sometimes it can be impossible to find the time to review a manuscript just because one is just too darn busy. That is a given!! What happens in traditional journals routinely is that such busy academics plan to review a paper but for a range of reasons never get around to it. Therefore, the editor in chief and staff of most journals spend most of their time (and journal money) chasing down reviewers and as a result the process of review can last for months in many cases. We at Cureus have tried to do something quite different in our review process. We invite a number of reviewers to review but we fully expect most to be too busy and decline. If anyone is busy, it is quite ok to decline, our Cureus editorial team totally understands. However, the expectation is that a few of the invited reviewers will have both the time and the interest to perform a timely review……in fact, we are eventually hoping to achieve a review cycle of just a few days.
While this review cycle is better than nearly all other medical journals, it should be noted that NEJM does offer a turn around time in a week for some selected topics so this objective is not totally beyond current trends at the most selective journals. By resetting expectations for reviews, Cureus hopes to avoid the many month review cycles that are commonplace with JNS or Neurosurgery for example. The beauty of a faster review cycle is that the reviewed article remains fresh in everyone’s mind so that a lot of time is not wasted reacquainting oneself (both author and reviewers) with the article and any reviewer comments that emanate with each review cycle. Moreover, Cureus’ in-browser reviewing tool makes it easier than ever for a reviewer to comment on a paper and communicate their critique directly to the author. In the process hopefully everyone wins. The ultimate objective is to accelerate the process of publishing/documenting medical science, which I believe to be a net positive.
Clearly your first interaction with Cureus was less than ideal. I am hoping that after my explanation here you might give Cureus another try? In particular I would love you to perhaps even consider publishing your own article in our totally FREE open access journal, an experience first hand how a faster/easier review process can even make publishing peer reviewed papers FUN!! I note that you are a DBS guy and by virtue of such you clearly must be comfortable with new ideas and technology. As Cureus seeks to innovate in the medical journal space, we especially welcome early adopters like yourself.
I am happy to answer any further questions should you have any or address any other concerns your might have.
Reviewer: Many thanks for your email and clarification. I do agree that the review process is often too lengthy, especially with the journals you mention. Sadly, even with the best will in the world, the pressures of clinical work and other academic deadlines do not make it feasible for me to provide a thorough review on a paper within a week of receiving the request.
That said, now that I understand the philosophy behind the Cureus review process and I do like the idea. It is a clean and workable solution, but I fear it may work against the clinical scientist, especially in the surgical field where time is more limited.
I do find publishing fun … especially the debate with constructive reviewers. I will think of Cureus if I have any suitable material in the coming months.